Letters: Sorry, SNP: the UK holds all the border aces

Ms Sturgeon might only want two, but what if the UK wanted more? For example, the SNP is proposing more liberal immigration policies; people who can't get into England might use Scotland as a back door. All the UK needs to do is set up border posts and there's nothing the SNP could do about it.
Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven

Where's the money coming from?

NICOLA Sturgeon has stated that independence is essential to build an economy that works for everyone.

In the first place the SNP has been in power for more than 15 years and during that tenure and with assistance from the United Kingdom Government we have seen a shambolic governance of our finances.

With the health service struggling due to lack of funding, the ferries to our island communities likewise, the school teachers and university lecturers about to strike, not forgetting our crumbling road network, the question I then ask is where is the SNP intending to get the finances to make this pipe dream viable, when it can't afford to address and finance these existing problems?
Neil Stewart, Balfron

So what are the 'real issues'?

FOR months now, throughout the summer and now into autumn, UK politics has been dominated by crisis in the Conservative Party. How many letters have been sent to the chairman of the 1922 Committee, whispers in the corridors of Westminster, Partygate, who should replace whom and so on?

It is extraordinary that in this situation people seeking to promote debate on Scotland's future are lambasted for "distracting" attention from the "real issues" facing the country.
Brian Harvey, Hamilton

Scotland showed the way

THE PM’s actions over the last week have been nothing short of despicable, sacking her Chancellor for obeying her instructions, a deed carried out in a desperate effort to save her premiership.

Liz Truss has not yet made contact with Scotland’s First Minister. However, while the PM’s interest in Scotland has yet to be witnessed, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Douglas Ross, has been heard demanding the Scottish Government adopt the mini-Budget presented on September 23, now shredded by the PM’s new Chancellor.

Thankfully, the Scottish Government gave this call the respect it deserved and binned it before Jeremy Hunt had a chance to do so. The country simply cannot afford any more Conservative economic policies from Westminster, they are bankrupting the country.
Catriona C Clark, Falkirk

Shame on Tory party members

WILL the Tory Party now change the method of electing a new leader, particularly to replace a Prime Minister, given the utter mess for which the party is now responsible?

Ms Truss was well known to, but not well liked by, her Parliamentary colleagues but the party at large chose to ignore this evidence.

Given her obvious lack of competence to be Prime Minister during the leadership campaign, I’m still staggered at what the Tory Party at large has done. The members must be as economically incoherent as their new (at the time of writing) leader.
Willie Towers, Alford

Truss and Fool Marx

RE Jim McSheffrey's suggestion (Letters, October 17), I think it is clear that Liz Truss is actually a Marxist. As Groucho said: "Those are my principles and if you don't like them... well, I have others".
Andy Ewan, Dunoon

Nature of Union has changed

AS we await the decision of the Supreme Court on whether the Scottish Parliament has the ability to legislate to hold a referendum on Scottish independence, the nature of the UK itself is under scrutiny.

It has been acknowledged that the UK is a multinational state, with nations free to leave if they want to. However, apart from Northern Ireland and in the absence of a written constitution, there are no legally or politically-agreed ways of allowing this to happen.

If it is decided by the Supreme Court that the Scottish Parliament does not have the ability to determine Scotland’s future, it is then in the hands of the British state to agree to this. Even if the Supreme Court decides that it does, the UK Government does not have to abide by the result of any such referendum, although one would hope it would. Given the current mood in Westminster, it would not be unexpected for it to legislate to reverse this judicial defeat.

This clearly changes the nature of the Union, from what it was believed to be, one based on consent, to one based on law.

So, we have the obvious contradiction of a UK Government that accepts that Scotland can become independent, as was illustrated by the vote in 2014, but none of the leading UK parties is willing to outline how such a political goal can be achieved.

The Supreme Court will not provide the answer to how Scotland can determine its own future, this will be a decision for politicians. If continued SNP victories in elections are simply to be disregarded, the onus is on the UK political parties to outline in what circumstances such a vote can take place.
Alex Orr, Edinburgh

Questions on changes to treaty

IN her recent conference speech the First Minister declared a policy of seeking to replace the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England with a partnership of equals amongst Scotland, England, the island of Ireland and Wales. The Treaty of Union in its wording certainly appears to aspire to be a partnership of equals and, if that aspiration has not been realised, should we not first of all seek to make appropriate changes to the treaty rather than to revoke the whole treaty and start from the beginning? Nevertheless, the First Minister’s suggestion is convenient because of the many very pertinent questions to which it gives rise.

Is the partnership as proposed a written document and, if so, when can we see a draft which can be compared to the Treaty of Union?

If the partnership is proposed as a verbal agreement, then, for the same reason, can we be advised as to its contents?

What aspects of the Treaty of Union fail to treat Scotland and England as equals and can the relevant sections be modified to correct that failure?

What court would determine any disputes that arose as to the content, meaning or effect of the terms of the partnership and would there be Scottish judicial representation at that court as there is currently at the Supreme Court?

Have all of the parties to the proposed partnership intimated their agreement to enter the partnership? If so, what forms have these intimations taken? Have these intimations been written, verbal or have they to be implied in some other way?

How can there be a partnership of equals when the parties are not equal in respect that one of the partners is about 10 times larger in population and economy as any of the other partners? What provisions does the partnership contain to counterbalance that practical inequality?

If there is no written or verbal agreement and if the parties have not intimated their agreements to enter the partnership and there are no such counter-balancing provisions, is the proposed partnership in fact non-existent but rather a figment of the First Minister’s electioneering imagination?

Are decisions taken in Westminster far more likely to have serious consequences in Ireland, Scotland and Wales than vice versa, for example levels of tax, international trade agreements, regulation of companies and commercial practice in general? Would it not therefore make much more sense for Ireland, Scotland and Wales to maintain their current representation at Westminster than to rely upon a partnership of equals that may well not exist in order to ensure that Westminster decision-making takes proper account of their respective, national interests?
Michael Sheridan, Glasgow

Read more letters: It's all over: even Boris Johnson couldn't save the Tories now

Letters should not exceed 500 words. We reserve the right to edit submissions.